Discourse Diversity in Multi-Turn Empathic Dialogue

Large language models (LLMs) produce responses rated as highly empathic in single-turn settings (Ayers et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2024), yet they are also known to be formulaic generators that reuse the same lexical patterns, syntactic templates, and discourse structures across tasks (Jiang et al., 2025; Shaib et al., 2024; Namuduri et al., 2025). Less attention has been paid to whether this formulaicity extends to the level of discourse moves, i.e., what a response does for the person it is addressing. This question is especially consequential for empathic dialogue, where effective support demands not just a kind response at one moment but varied strategies as a conversation unfolds (Stiles et al., 1998). Indeed, prior work shows that LLMs reuse the same tactic sequences more than human supporters in single-turn settings (Gueorguieva et al., 2026). We extend this analysis to multi-turn conversations and find that the rigidity compounds: once a tactic appears in a supporter turn, LLMs reuse it in the next at nearly double the rate of humans (0.50-0.56 vs. 0.27). This pattern holds across LLMs serving as supporters in real emotional support conversations, and is invisible to standard similarity metrics. To address this gap, we introduce MINT (Multi-turn Inter-tactic Novelty Training), the first reinforcement learning framework to optimize discourse move diversity across multi-turn empathic dialogue. The best MINT variant combines an empathy quality reward with a cross-turn tactic novelty signal, improving aggregate empathy by 25.3% over vanilla across 1.7B and 4B models while reducing cross-turn discourse move repetition by 26.3% on the 4B model, surpassing all baselines including quality-only and token-level diversity methods on both measures. These results suggest that what current models lack is not empathy itself, but the ability to vary their discourse moves across a conversation.

AI generates well-liked but templatic empathic responses

Recent research shows that greater numbers of people are turning to Large Language Models (LLMs) for emotional support, and that people rate LLM responses as more empathic than human-written responses. We suggest a reason for this success: LLMs have learned and consistently deploy a well-liked template for expressing empathy. We develop a taxonomy of 10 empathic language "tactics" that include validating someone's feelings and paraphrasing, and apply this taxonomy to characterize the language that people and LLMs produce when writing empathic responses. Across a set of 2 studies comparing a total of n = 3,265 AI-generated (by six models) and n = 1,290 human-written responses, we find that LLM responses are highly formulaic at a discourse functional level. We discovered a template -- a structured sequence of tactics -- that matches between 83--90% of LLM responses (and 60--83\% in a held out sample), and when those are matched, covers 81--92% of the response. By contrast, human-written responses are more diverse. We end with a discussion of implications for the future of AI-generated empathy.

When to Call an Apple Red: Humans Follow Introspective Rules, VLMs Don't

Understanding when Vision-Language Models (VLMs) will behave unexpectedly, whether models can reliably predict their own behavior, and if models adhere to their introspective reasoning are central challenges for trustworthy deployment. To study this, we introduce the Graded Color Attribution (GCA) dataset, a controlled benchmark designed to elicit decision rules and evaluate participant faithfulness to these rules. GCA consists of line drawings that vary pixel-level color coverage across three conditions: world-knowledge recolorings, counterfactual recolorings, and shapes with no color priors. Using GCA, both VLMs and human participants establish a threshold: the minimum percentage of pixels of a given color an object must have to receive that color label. We then compare these rules with their subsequent color attribution decisions. Our findings reveal that models systematically violate their own introspective rules. For example, GPT-5-mini violates its stated introspection rules in nearly 60\% of cases on objects with strong color priors. Human participants remain faithful to their stated rules, with any apparent violations being explained by a well-documented tendency to overestimate color coverage. In contrast, we find that VLMs are excellent estimators of color coverage, yet blatantly contradict their own reasoning in their final responses. Across all models and strategies for eliciting introspective rules, world-knowledge priors systematically degrade faithfulness in ways that do not mirror human cognition. Our findings challenge the view that VLM reasoning failures are difficulty-driven and suggest that VLM introspective self-knowledge is miscalibrated, with direct implications for high-stakes deployment.

This Treatment Works, Right? Evaluating LLM Sensitivity to Patient Question Framing in Medical QA

Patients are increasingly turning to large language models (LLMs) with medical questions that are complex and difficult to articulate clearly. However, LLMs are sensitive to prompt phrasings and can be influenced by the way questions are worded. Ideally, LLMs should respond consistently regardless of phrasing, particularly when grounded in the same underlying evidence. We investigate this through a systematic evaluation in a controlled retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) setting for medical question answering (QA), where expert-selected documents are used rather than retrieved automatically. We examine two dimensions of patient query variation: question framing (positive vs. negative) and language style (technical vs. plain language). We construct a dataset of 6,614 query pairs grounded in clinical trial abstracts and evaluate response consistency across eight LLMs. Our findings show that positively- and negatively-framed pairs are significantly more likely to produce contradictory conclusions than same-framing pairs. This framing effect is further amplified in multi-turn conversations, where sustained persuasion increases inconsistency. We find no significant interaction between framing and language style. Our results demonstrate that LLM responses in medical QA can be systematically influenced through query phrasing alone, even when grounded in the same evidence, highlighting the importance of phrasing robustness as an evaluation criterion for RAG-based systems in high-stakes settings.

CREATE: Testing LLMs for Associative Creativity

A key component of creativity is associative reasoning: the ability to draw novel yet meaningful connections between concepts. We introduce CREATE, a benchmark designed to evaluate models' capacity for creative associative reasoning. CREATE requires models to generate sets of paths connecting concepts in a model's parametric knowledge. Paths should have high specificity (distinctiveness and closeness of the concept connection) and high diversity (dissimilarity from other paths), and models are scored more highly if they produce a larger set of strong, diverse paths. This task shares demands of real creativity tasks like hypothesis generation, including an extremely large search space, but enables collection of a sizable benchmark with objective answer grading. Evaluation of frontier models shows that the strongest models achieve higher creative utility than others, with the high multiplicity of answers and complexity of the search making benchmark saturation difficult to achieve. Furthermore, our results illustrate that thinking models are not always more effective on our task, even with high token budgets. Recent approaches for creative prompting give some but limited additional improvement. CREATE provides a sandbox for developing new methods to improve models' capacity for associative creativity.

Which course? Discourse! Teaching Discourse and Generation in the Era of LLMs

The field of NLP has undergone vast, continuous transformations over the past few years, sparking debates going beyond discipline boundaries. This begs important questions in education: how do we design courses that bridge sub-disciplines in this shifting landscape? This paper explores this question from the angle of discourse processing, an area with rich linguistic insights and computational models for the intentional, attentional, and coherence structure of language. Discourse is highly relevant for open-ended or long-form text generation, yet this connection is under-explored in existing undergraduate curricula. We present a new course, "Computational Discourse and Natural Language Generation". The course is collaboratively designed by a team with complementary expertise and was offered for the first time in Fall 2025 as an upper-level undergraduate course, cross-listed between Linguistics and Computer Science. Our philosophy is to deeply integrate the theoretical and empirical aspects, and create an exploratory mindset inside the classroom and in the assignments. This paper describes the course in detail and concludes with takeaways from an independent survey as well as our vision for future directions.

Faithfulness vs. Safety: Evaluating LLM Behavior Under Counterfactual Medical Evidence

In high-stakes domains like medicine, it may be generally desirable for models to faithfully adhere to the context provided. But what happens if the context does not align with model priors or safety protocols? In this paper, we investigate how LLMs behave and reason when presented with counterfactual or even adversarial medical evidence. We first construct MedCounterFact, a counterfactual medical QA dataset that requires the models to answer clinical comparison questions (i.e., judge the efficacy of certain treatments, with evidence consisting of randomized controlled trials provided as context). In MedCounterFact, real-world medical interventions within the questions and evidence are systematically replaced with four types of counterfactual stimuli, ranging from unknown words to toxic substances. Our evaluation across multiple frontier LLMs on MedCounterFact reveals that in the presence of counterfactual evidence, existing models overwhelmingly accept such "evidence" at face value even when it is dangerous or implausible, and provide confident and uncaveated answers. While it may be prudent to draw a boundary between faithfulness and safety, our findings reveal that there exists no such boundary yet.

WUGNECTIVES: Novel Entity Inferences of Language Models from Discourse Connectives

The role of world knowledge has been particularly crucial to predict the discourse connective that marks the discourse relation between two arguments, with language models (LMs) being generally successful at this task. We flip this premise in our work, and instead study the inverse problem of understanding whether discourse connectives can inform LMs about the world. To this end, we present WUGNECTIVES, a dataset of 8,880 stimuli that evaluates LMs' inferences about novel entities in contexts where connectives link the entities to particular attributes. On investigating 17 different LMs at various scales, and training regimens, we found that tuning an LM to show reasoning behavior yields noteworthy improvements on most connectives. At the same time, there was a large variation in LMs' overall performance across connective type, with all models systematically struggling on connectives that express a concessive meaning. Our findings pave the way for more nuanced investigations into the functional role of language cues as captured by LMs. We release WUGNECTIVES at https://github.com/sheffwb/wugnectives.

Decide less, communicate more: On the construct validity of end-to-end fact-checking in medicine

Technological progress has led to concrete advancements in tasks that were regarded as challenging, such as automatic fact-checking. Interest in adopting these systems for public health and medicine has grown due to the high-stakes nature of medical decisions and challenges in critically appraising a vast and diverse medical literature. Evidence-based medicine connects to every individual, and yet the nature of it is highly technical, rendering the medical literacy of majority users inadequate to sufficiently navigate the domain. Such problems with medical communication ripens the ground for end-to-end fact-checking agents: check a claim against current medical literature and return with an evidence-backed verdict. And yet, such systems remain largely unused. To understand this, we present the first study examining how clinical experts verify real claims from social media by synthesizing medical evidence. In searching for this upper-bound, we reveal fundamental challenges in end-to-end fact-checking when applied to medicine: Difficulties connecting claims in the wild to scientific evidence in the form of clinical trials; ambiguities in underspecified claims mixed with mismatched intentions; and inherently subjective veracity labels. We argue that fact-checking should be approached and evaluated as an interactive communication problem, rather than an end-to-end process.

Is It JUST Semantics? A Case Study of Discourse Particle Understanding in LLMs

Discourse particles are crucial elements that subtly shape the meaning of text. These words, often polyfunctional, give rise to nuanced and often quite disparate semantic/discourse effects, as exemplified by the diverse uses of the particle "just" (e.g., exclusive, temporal, emphatic). This work investigates the capacity of LLMs to distinguish the fine-grained senses of English "just", a well-studied example in formal semantics, using data meticulously created and labeled by expert linguists. Our findings reveal that while LLMs exhibit some ability to differentiate between broader categories, they struggle to fully capture more subtle nuances, highlighting a gap in their understanding of discourse particles.